Jump to content

SL Xpress

Full Members
  • Posts

    4266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SL Xpress

  1. Sure, and the fact that the US has the most powerful military with the most robust projection of force in the history of the world helps in regards to having the world's reserve currency and subsidizes the cost of our debt. There are tremendous financial advantages to being stronger militarily than our neighbors. It's the equivalent of other countries offering us tribute for our protection. Everyone sells us goods, and then either keeps the dollars they earn as a reserve currency, or agrees to buy our debt (and our assets) so that we can continue to enjoy a standard of living we're not currently actually producing enough goods and services that other countries want to pay for it. But Russia doesn't have that advantage. And it still doesn't make an effective counterpoint that spending on the military is inherently inflationary. It is. Just to review, the article was specifically about how Russia's economy is spiraling into a hyperinflationary economy. They list a bunch of reasons why spending 41% of their GDP on their military is helping to create that issue. My basic point is that the military spending by itself is also inherently inflationary. The US's ability to parlay our military might into advantageous economic relationships via both our friends and foes does not apply to Russia in the same way, especially as they're subject to severe sanctions by most of the developed world, and are mired in a battle of attrition for assets in the Donbas that aren't currently of a great deal of economic value, since in order to take control of them Russia has to obliterate them first.
  2. Military expenditures can increase productivity indirectly. Talking about military expenditures being inherently inflationary refers to military items themselves not contributing to an increase in productivity. An aircraft carrier is not going to make the economy more productive. A trebuchet is not going to make the economy more productive. Which is not to say the resources shouldn't be spent on those items. But it is an inherently inflationary investment. I would argue that in the US, military investment is basically our only national investment in manufacturing at this point, in ways that I would argue are critical for our long term economic output. But that still doesn't change the concept of military expenditures as being inherently inflationary. But yes, all kinds of advancements have come from military investment. Mainframe computers simply being one in a long long list, going back to the dawn of mankind. I will say that often it's because military use can demand the expenditure of resources because of its existential nature that the same civilian R&D would not. Not to mention humans are galvanized in a different way when faced with extraordinary circumstances. Then there's the simple fact that if one tribe invests in their military and the neighboring tribe invests in their civilian economy, history shows that the tribe that invests in their military simply takes over their neighbor, in which case we can wonder how much of a consolation it is for the latter tribe that they invested in the less inherently inflationary activity.
  3. That's exactly my point. You and I are on the same page. And that's the problem. 1) In my view along a long enough timeline nuclear weapons will eventually be used 2) The fewer countries that have the capability of using them, the better, with the ideal being zero, second best being one or two, depending on whether you agree having two nuclear adversaries is better than one country having a monopoly. I lean in favor of one, but there are legitimate arguments for two. I'm just not going to go down that rabbit hole. Mind you, we're talking existential terms, so whether the country with all the nukes is benevolent or comic book villain evil is less important than the fact they're less likely to end the human race if they're the only ones with the weapons, at least for the sake of the discussion I'm engaging in. The more countries that possess them after one or two, the greater the likelihood they'll be used. 3) To have fewer countries possess nuclear weapons, there have to be incentives for them not to possess them. The incentives must be greater than the current incentives to possess them. Right now the incentives for giving up nuclear weapons are not aligned with my goal of having fewer countries possessing them. For example, North Korea and Iran have both faced severe sanctions and isolation to give up their nuclear weapons programs, but possessing them and suffering the consequences are weighed against what has happened to Ukraine, which has had their country torn apart, first through subterfuge and then by direct invasion. Something that would have been given pause on some level if the threat of nukes had existed. So securing a country's sovereignty even after they give up nukes is paramount, but also making the consequences of keeping them has to be elevated to an existential level to some degree, otherwise the incentives to give them up fall short.
  4. He has that Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers look to him.
  5. Well, in my ideal world the consequences would be as severe as necessary, including annihilation, if that's what it took. I feel like the threat from nuclear weapons - specifically ICBMs - and their eventual use is that dangerous and existential. I would argue if the US chose to be the only country to keep their nukes the rest of the world should band together to completely isolate us. But if they can't be eliminated entirely - which they can't - then certainly the fewer countries that have them the better, and the odds increase for the species' survival without suffering through a nuclear holocaust. My view is not based on a 10 year, 20 year, 50 year, or 80 year timeline. In many ways the build up of nuclear arsenals has done the world a lot of good. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's a mixed bag and it's certainly been THE key factor in preventing a worldwide conflagration the likes of which we saw during WWII. But over a 100 year, 200 year, 500 year time span I view the use of nuclear weapons inevitable unless the consequences for possessing them are much more severe than they currently are. We have our incentivization for the collective species reversed, where our tribes are encouraged to possess nuclear weapons because of a demonstrable security and stability for our nation states. For the species as a whole that incentivization should be the other way, to whatever degree is necessary. But this is fanciful blathering on my part. I'm posting on a message board anonymously. If I was secretary of state or a foreign minister somewhere I would have to mend my message in many ways. I still think the core of it is compelling on some level - that along a long enough time line the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable, and nuclear proliferation is a much more serious, important, and existential issue than we choose to collectively acknowledge, with Ukraine a key test case for why any efforts at reversing the trend will end in failure - and I wish the public dialogue reflected that. Not that it's absent, but it's not as draconian as I'd prefer. We're not really geared as a species to be fully pro active. We need a catastrophe to galvanize us in a specific direction, because without it, being proactive can feel like a waste of collective effort to significant portions of the population. Even a catastrophe can produce mixed reactions, so it often has to be really bad to truly galvanize an entire community. "The party doesn't end unless it ends badly." So maybe there's a limited nuclear war somewhere - e.g. Pakistan and India - and that shifts the thinking into a much more radical perspective without ending the species and/or life on the planet. I'm not hoping for it, mind you. Frankly, I'm hoping we help Ukraine win this war and they win their sovereignty from Russia, and Russia pays a huge price for their invasion. I don't think that makes nation states reconsider their level of safety even without nuclear weapons, but the better Ukraine does, the less empty the Budapest memorandum seems. To me at least. It's unconscionable to me that Ukraine is being punished so severely for handing over their nuclear weapons. It's heading in the exact opposite direction we should be as a species.
  6. I would add that military spending by its nature is inherently inflationary because it does not add directly to greater productivity. It does add to greater productivity indirectly, but the same amount spent on military R&D and manufacturing versus civilian R&D, manufacturing and infrastructure should increase the latter economy more, all other things being equal. The only way for something akin to 41% spending on military to pay for itself is to take over the productive capacity or at the least leverage tribute from countries scared of the possible use of that military. But it's tough to make that work. Especially at those levels. And certainly Russia isn't successfully doing anything remotely like that. And at whatever time those military conquests and/or tribute payments stop or slow down, the whole mechanism falls apart. But Russia can skip the stop or slow down part and go directly to the fall apart aspect of it. But as long as other countries are assisting in a blowback to US hegemony, Russia can at least forestall the collapse to the extent that the other countries are helping. Obviously I'm thinking about China specifically. I just don't believe China has a blank check they're willing to give Russia. They're more like a loan shark looking to divvy up Russia's most productive assets to become a sort of long term vassal state than some kind of actual ally. And Iran and North Korea have their own significant economic issues. Maybe enough central and eastern European countries enter firmly into Russia's orbit as sympathetic political actors? But I don't believe that will happen, either. Many of the election results are worrying to me, but just because in countries like Austria the far right has gained a pluralistic majority, and the political philosophy continues to gain steam in many places, we're still a long ways off from those countries offering direct support. It's more like they become obstacles for putting more pressure on Russia and gum up the works in assisting Ukraine as a bloc. Which is important, but not helpful regarding Russia's inherent inflationary issues.
  7. All I know is that given a long enough timeline nukes are going to be used someday given the level of proliferation and the fact that some people would rather destroy a thing if they can't have it. At this point it's an 80 year old technology, with enough widespread knowledge about how to create one. It just requires a lot of infrastructure to make enough of them to be a real deterrent more so than simply the biggest and most spectacular suicide bomb ever. There just needs to be some level of concurrence between such a personality having control over nuclear weapons and the people around them buying into their leadership, and then a set of circumstances where they'd rather blow up the world or at least some part of it damn the consequences. We're in a collective willful suspension of disbelief regarding this. Along with being hopeful maybe as a species we'll hold off until after we're all gone and then it can be somebody else's problem. I don't really believe it will be Putin, but it's going to be someone, so maybe it ends up being him. If we were truly serious as a species about preventing their use, the consequences for possessing them would be much more severe. Instead there are more countries than ever that possess them, and I don't believe the number is going to go down any time soon. Especially with the lesson learned from Ukraine. "Here, give us the nuclear weapons you currently possess, and in return we'll give you this piece of paper where several of us make very serious assurances about your sovereignty. We'll even pinky swear."
  8. I feel like it's become a litmus test issue for which tribe we belong in, whether we want it to or not. I feel like I'm inherently accused of being transphobic if I don't believe transgender women should be competing in women's sports. I guess if that's part of the definition, then I am. I like your point about men being the open competition. If a woman is able to compete equally with men then by all means, she should be able to do so. I don't think the problem is as much about whether she's permitted to. It's about she's not able to compete athletically with the men, so there's a separate category created for women so there can be a more competitive footing among their peers. In theory the idea of a more nuanced categorization that isn't completely binary can have some appeal, but in practice it becomes too subjective and people get into arguments about what subjective measurement is the ideal. It's simpler to say if you're born a woman you can compete against other women. If you're not, then you're not. Absolutely there are plenty of transgender women who will not dominate their biological counterparts in athletic endeavors, but all it takes is one, unfortunately, for the whole thing to feel unfair for people who were women at birth. To me it feels unfair for transgender women not to be able to participate in sports when that's such an important part of our existence. But it's also unfair in my opinion for women to compete against transgender women, when the whole purpose of having women's sports in the first place was to give them an exclusivity because of the acknowledgement that it would not be a fair competition to introduce men into the equation. It's my belief if you break the seal and say it's okay for transgender women to compete under certain circumstances it can be difficult to actually argue that arbitrary line, whereas if you make the line whether someone is born as a woman or not, the line seems as clear cut as it's going to get.
  9. I do not believe Syria will ever have a democracy in my lifetime, any more than I feel Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, or any number of other Arab Spring countries. I feel like it's silly to aspire to. I had high hopes for Tunisia, but they've been dashed. First there would need to be some kind of reinterpretation of the Koran. I don't think that's achievable accept in an authoritarian state with a single ruler who can help encourage a clerical school of thought more amenable to democracy. Or there would need to be a completely secular rule a la Kemal style with the military in charge of bringing about a coup any time the Islamists take power. But a grass roots democratic movement is doomed to be taken over by Islamists who mandate the application and enforcement of Sharia law. I always felt it was a massive mistake to declare establishing democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq as chief aims of those wars. I don't even think of it as pessimism, although I understand why someone else would see it that way. The Palestinians were displaced. It's seen as an injustice in the Arab and Pan Muslim world. More than that, it's not just seen as an injustice, but as a symbol of the Muslim world's impotence that they haven't been able to do anything about it. If only they were ruled by a Caliphate under a united banner. There will always be plenty of aspirants for that position.
  10. This cheering on of the end of Hezbollah reminds me of George Bush parachuting onto the Abraham Lincoln. I understand Hezbollah's operations have been crippled, but the foundational motivations of the organization haven't changed. Whether it's the PLA, Hamas, Hezbollah, or various entities in the Muslim world - including heads of state - who want to take power in part by identifying with the jihad to throw Israelis out of Palestine, the struggle will continue. It's been an impressive series of attacks on the Hezbollah organizational structure, though, from an organizational perspective. Obviously the civilian deaths are going to be unacceptable to a lot of people, but Israel is continuing to show that's a consideration they're willing to overcome. Repeatedly.
  11. I feel like it's inherent in my fundamental view of this specific dynamic, and moreso, my fundamental view of humanity. I think it's fair to say I believe at heart we're a species of genocidal maniacs, always have been, always will be in default mode, and only through a significant amount of various types of repression, assimilation, and ultimately interbreeding does that get alleviated. I know people like to think we've evolved past all that, but we really haven't. It's still there always waiting for another generation to reboot. To me it's instinctual on the same level flying south for the winter is for birds. Not necessarily directly, but all the mechanisms that make us fundamentally human also ultimately compel us to seek the extermination and subjugation of our others, whoever that happens to be. If I felt like there was a decent possibility Palestinians and Israelis would intermarry, assimilate, someday to the point where they're indistinguishable from one another that to me is the best path forward. But I don't think that's a decent possibility. In any case, I just read a really good article about Ta-Nehisi's new book. He wrote a famous essay in The Atlantic called "The Case for Reparations" and a memoir "Between the World and Me." HIs next book is called "The Message." It's apparently about 3 different visits. One to Dakar, Senegal, where he experiences a deep sympathy for the oppressed from colonialism from his own perspective; Chapin, South Carolina, where a teacher has been pressured to stop teaching his book Between the World and Me because it was making some student feel ashamed to be Caucasian. But the lion's share of the article is about Ta-Nehisi visiting the West Bank, and how he returned transformed by the injustice of what he saw there. It was very powerful and evocative, especially where the article channels Ta-Nehisi's passion for the subject. I think you'd enjoy reading it. I did, even if I remain unpersuaded to his view. I'll try to read The Message and see how I feel after that. The Return of Ta-Nehisi Coates - Longreads
  12. I guess we have different definitions of the shit hitting the fan. There isn't a single country in the world under the same kind of existential threat Israel is, outside of the use of nuclear weapons, which is its own level of existential threat. That's been true since they became a nation. To me the shit is always hitting the fan. I do not feel like we are as powerful as people like to assume we are. I feel like we were very powerful coming out of WWII. Economically we were as dominant as any society has ever been through the 60s. Since then we have lost our manufacturing base. We keep up our standard of living by exporting our debt to create our current account balance, and the rest of the world funds it because we're all in a codependent relationship economically speaking. The rest of the world funds our consumption so they can keep selling us stuff. Which works until it doesn't, and the fall whenever it happens won't be some kind of soft landing. In the meantime we keep this Ponzi scheme of sorts going by having the world's most competent projection of power and using it to keep the global trade going, and using the dollar as the reserve currency. We're less united as a society than we've been since before the Civil War. We have no real vision for what our future is supposed to be, or what or how we're going to get there. Our military strength is less now than it was, especially the Navy, which is the chief tool for the projection of power. We have less collective trust in our institutions than we ever have. In any case, I'm not sure how material that is because overall if anything supporting Israel is an albatross to economic growth. Not a boon. As far as the buying of elected officials, there is an element of conviction involved. The most vociferous supporters of Israel don't do so because they're bought and paid for. They're supported because they support Israel. That's how the different representatives lost their primary this go around after going against Israel. AIPAC and affiliated PACs found candidates who were supportive of Israel and could win the election. Israel wasn't even brought up on the campaign trail even though everyone knew where a huge source of the money was coming from. But that funding is coming from American citizens on Israel's behalf. Not from Israel itself. Whatever Netanyahu knew or didn't know, whatever he's guilty of regarding Hamas, he is not the one who ordered that attack. And that attack doesn't happen without some complicity from the people of Gaza. Nor did Netanyahu encourage all the celebrations after the attack from pro Palestinian circles - a celebration that still occurs to some extent as representative of a mighty blow to the implacable foe. Hamas is just as guilty in many ways of knowing exactly what the Israeli response would be and purposefully triggering it. Well, now they have it. I do not believe Israel acts with impunity. Their actions have consequences consistently. They do, however, act with conviction. If not for the support of the US I feel certain they would be much more isolated than they are now, and even with US support they often are very isolated. It goes back to what I've said all along. I believe a side has to be picked. The US has picked Israel since its existence and continues to do so. That's a stance I'm supportive of. I don't think there's any such thing as a neutral stance. I guess indifference maybe? That would be a neutral stance of a sort. But anything that resembles a neutral stance to me is actually a pro Palestinian stance. I realize you find that offensive, but that's not my intention.
  13. I would agree the American taxpayers don't need to be involved. I'm in favor of them being involved. You are not. I get that. But the US not being involved is not a moderate stance. It's an isolationist stance that favors the Palestinian cause. I don't understand what you mean by, "It was not lost on me the shift in your prior response from 'US-led rules-based international order' to 'US led international order'. And it is not lost on the rest of the world either." The rest of the world knows good and well the US will either craft rules that work in their favor, or they'll create exceptions in the rules when it's to their benefit. I don't think that's some kind of secret.
  14. That's not going to bring about peace. The underlying issues will still be there, and the next generation will step in. But it will give a respite because of the loss of institutional knowledge. Nothing that is being done right now changes the fundamental calculus. It simply changes the ability for one side to strike at the other. And while this has been very one sided on the battlefield, I'd say the Palestinian cause has been very successful in the public relations department. Which was part of the goal of Hamas in the first place. Provoke a reaction from Israel so extreme that it generates a sympathetic response. I have been very impressed with how well the Palestinian cause has successfully aligned themselves with groups who on the face of it wouldn't be natural allies even a little bit. And how active everyone has been. I don't know if that does anything in the long run, but it certainly seems like a sea change to me.
  15. I can say I've never purposefully misrepresented your position, but I can admit I possibly did. Thank you for taking the time to type that out. I didn't mean to suggest that the Palestinians are a-okay with the settlers or their behavior. My point is that there is anger that is even more fundamental that underlies every interaction that isn't going away when Israel stops expanding the settlements. I think it's admirable you're not a defeatist. I do believe Israel will be an apartheid/ethno state for as long as the Israelis have any kind of power over the situation. I don't know what you mean by the term "work." It will be constant conflict with a lot of murder and barbarous behavior on both sides, until one or the other are displaced. I guess there's the option of assimilation. Either one side or the other take on the cultural values and identity of the other, through conversion or intermarriage or a combination, but that seems extremely farfetched to me. I don't think it matters what the majority of people really want. You know what the majority of people really want? They pretty much want their basic needs met plus a little more than what they have right now. It's a moving goalpost because that's how we're built. But societies aren't driven by the mainstream. That's not what the mainstream does. It doesn't drive society anywhere. Societies are driven by the extremes. If there's not a compelling voice this generation to move a society in one direction or another, there will be in the next generation. Not necessarily in a good direction, either. Possibly to that society's ruin. But maybe not. Maybe to greater heights. That's how it works. The biggest glue we have in our tribes is the identification of an other. We do it as children. We do it as teenagers. We do it as adults. It's inherent in our humanity. Palestinians and Israelis are not going to be able to peacefully live side by side unless one side is so utterly dominant the other is not seen as a threat. The Jews were successful minorities for two millennia because they never took overt power and they made themselves useful. Even then they were constantly persecuted and expelled from nation after nation. And they were one of the most successful diasporas ever. The most successful, I'd argue. The Arabs who are citizens in Israel are able to do so because they're not a threat to power. They take part in no government sharing responsibilities. They've had one Arab cabinet member in the history of Israel. As long as the Arab citizens are okay with that, or at least pretend to be okay with that, no problem. Of course they're not completely okay, but what are they going to do? I know I come from a place of conviction and that can be very offputting, and I apologize for that. I certainly believe there's room to agree to disagree. I find your stance hopeful, and mine more fatalistic. But I do feel I have the right of it. And from a policy making standpoint I don't see the purpose changing the overall US foreign policy stance towards Israel. They're in a continual fight for their existence and will be for the rest of my lifetime at a bare minimum. Really, for much longer than that. Could be the same issues are extant a century or more from now. If they aren't, again, it means one side or the other lost their cultural identity for the most part. What's going on currently and why we have this thread is that Hamas performed a successful military occupation that killed 1200 people and took 250 hostages, and in a show of unity, Hezbollah has fired off rockets continuously for as long as the military action in Gaza has continued. Fundamentally both organizations want Israel to cease to exist. I guess if the Arabs would just be happy with their second class citizenship and quit pining for the land the Jews took from them, sure, we'd have a real chance for some lasting peace. What are the odds of that? Especially when it serves one foreign actor or another to fund them to disrupt Israel as much as possible. And even when there's some pretense of peace, Hamas is going about preparing for conflict, like they did for a decade or more before the recent operation while Israel seemingly focused on the West Bank. And as you've noted, the Israelis are expanding their settlements, especially in the West Bank, and making day to day life miserable for the Palestinians just wanting to live their lives with some aspirations that still live there. I just believe any peace is a mirage preparing for the next stage of the conflict, and to pretend otherwise is dangerous in the same sense of Chamberlain's peace in our lifetime speech.
  16. Here are the two divergent viewpoints, written from a pro Palestinian perspective and then an Israeli perspective, within the last 24 hours. Opinion: Israel's growing war with Hezbollah is traumatizing Lebanon. There's only one path to peace (msn.com) This person writes the only path to peace is a cease fire in Gaza, whatever that takes, including the US withholding support until it's done. According to the author, Hezbollah has been circumspect in their daily rocket attacks into Israel, but now all bets are off. Compared to the Times of Israel: Israel keeps moving up the escalation ladder, hoping Nasrallah will jump off (msn.com) That basically concludes Hezbollah needs to back off their commitment to support Hamas in Gaza, and quit firing rockets into northern Israel. If they don't, Israel is making plans to invade to make them stop. Where's the middle ground between these two perspectives? To me both of these solutions look very much like capitulation, for one side or the other.
  17. Which doesn't really change much regarding the narrative. I don't really care. But the idea that the US subverted the selection of a leader to serve their interests is the main point. The tertiary point is that it's one of the most cited examples of the US historically exerting influence over the region. All I'm saying is that appealing to the US's role as this do gooder in this international rules based order is fine and dandy right up to the point it goes against our interests in some compelling way. Which is why appealing to the US in terms of abiding by an international rules based system when it comes to Israel doesn't have the appeal to me it might to someone else.
  18. Over the top in what way? When Jimmy Carter came to power one of his big priorities was to make human rights the center piece of his foreign policy. The US had brought the Shah to power in 1953 by supporting a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Mohaamed Mosaddegh. It's a pivotal event in the area - not just in Iran, but in the Middle East overall - because it was even more flagrant than usual with the CIA changing the government - ostensibly for anti communist purposes, and maybe that's true, but even more so because it was against both the US and UK's interests in the country's oil. Then first under Kennedy/Johnson, and especially later under Kissinger/Nixon, Iran became the flagship recipient of US largesse along with Israel. Iran was going to be the linchpin of US Middle East interests. The Shah built up his military, beefed up his internal security, went after any potential political enemies - including Khomeni who ended up exiled to Iraq, Turkey, and then temporarily in France. He also introduced a number of powerful reforms in the early 60s intended to Westernize the Persians. Carter felt like he could work with Khomeni because the two were both deeply religious. The final piece is that the Carter administration helped bring Khomeni back to Iran, and put a stop to an intended coup from the Army to keep the revolution from occurring. Under Carter the Shah felt like the rug had been pulled from under him, especially after the massive support he enjoyed with Kissinger as the Secretary of State. Does all of that sound over the top?
  19. It's still peculiarly American. There are understandable reasons for it, but the average American is grossly ignorant of what goes on in the world - and not really that curious about it. It's particularly peculiar when the United States has been the dominant player in world affairs at least since post WWII. Alexis de Toqueville commented on it in the 1830s. This isn't new. Social media has been a factor, but for the most part it simply creates echo chambers that tell people what they want to hear anyway. What a whole lot of people want to hear about at their core is that Americans are taking care of Americans first. Why in the world are we even getting involved in all this other stuff?
  20. I would say the American people have always been isolationist. The political leaders not so much. But it's virtually always been a good political position for the voting public to keep us out of foreign conflicts. It's rarely been a good policy to advocate for war. Not even for WWII, and that should have been an easy one. No one has been elected for advocating getting involved in foreign conflicts.
  21. I don't think any of my posts should be used as the basis for foreign policy. I'm simply pointing out how useless any attempts at a long term peace are. Just because it's useless doesn't mean it's not the best of a lot of bad options. It's clear from the beginning where the US foreign policy interests have been ever since the US was the first country to recognize Isreal as a nation in 1947. The alliance has been fraught with difficulties throughout the decades since. The 1973 oil crisis was precipitated by US support for Israel, for example. There's the US Liberty "incident." There's the problem with being supportive of a government actively repressing a population under its control ever since they took over the territories through military victory. On the other side the chief advocates fighting for the Palestinian cause are all labeled as terrorist organizations. I don't think it gets more one sided than that. To me, calling for the US led based international order to be something other than a way for the US to operate in a way that is to its benefit is a little silly. That mentality is how we ended up helping to pave the way for the Ayatollah to take over in Iran, because of all of the human rights violations under the Shah - who was put in power by the US in the first place. There are repressive regimes we've supported as a nation all over the place. Some really famous ones include Pinochet in Chile, two dictatorships in South Korea, Marcos in the Philippines, dictatorships in any number of oil producing countries in Africa and the Middle East. Then there's the vaunted Arab Spring pushed with substantial US backing to create a more democratic environment in the Middle East. How did that turn out? A few substantially failed states, the end of Mubarak, a key ally in the region, only to eventually see another coup - thank goodness - otherwise it would have been a real disaster in the region. This idea that the US should pull support for Israel because what they're doing is wrong is warm and fuzzy, but it's not compelling to me. The fight Israel is in is for their existence. Maybe the US shouldn't support Israel. I do, and I think it makes sense on any number of levels to do so, but maybe I'm wrong on that account. There are very legitimate reasons to support the Palestinian cause. I just don't believe anyone who claims to be a moderate on this issue as anything other than being self serving for the Palestinian cause or genuinely naive. Don't forget, the current state of the conflict started with Hamas using a wide spread attack to kill 1200 people and to take 250 hostages. It's not like it was unprecipitated. The current campaign against Hezbollah came after months of near daily rocket attacks. I read an article in the LA Times today that the only solution is a cease fire in Gaza. How about not launch rocket attacks? I get that's a no go, but let's admit that it's a no go in the first place that Hezbollah cease their rocket attacks before we put all the blame on Israel.
  22. I am not saying you have to be okay with anything. Just don't pretend you're not pro Palestinian when you are. I don't think Jews have to be exterminated for the Palestinian side to win. They just need to be removed from Palestine. That's why people like to say they're not anti semitic, they're simply anti Zionist. And then people who are pro Israel try to conflate the two. Decolonization is not a metaphor. But Israelis aren't going anywhere. Ergo the impasse.
  23. Why? To establish a two state system that isn't going to work? Your "moderate" stance is pro Palestinian. Period. The Palestinians aren't fundamentally upset about the settler movement in the West Bank and areas around Gaza. They're more upset the Jews control Jerusalem. That's what this conflict is about. People want to pretend if the Jews and Palestinians will just be nice to one another and treat each other with respect and human decency, we can all put this in the rear view mirror. The Jews want their historical homeland. More than that, they have it. The Palestinians want their homeland back that they believe - rightfully - was taken from them by force. That's the crux of it. You'd have the Jews and Palestinians live in one country in perfect harmony somehow, with the Palestinians dominating the government because of having a larger population. I don't understand how you think that's ever going to work in the real world at all. Why in the world would the Israelis allow that to occur? They'd be under immediate threat of legal expulsion the moment something like that occurred. The same way it occurred in all the other Arab countries. The Palestinians want their country back. Not part of their country. The whole country. The Jews are going to make sure they die before they give it back. When the Jews say "Never Again" about the Holocaust, they don't mean there will never be another Jewish genocide. They mean they're not going to go meekly into the cattle cars and gas chambers next time. I feel like you think I'm extolling genocide of the Palestinian people. I am not. I'm simply saying one or the other has to go, one way or another. That's the only way towards lasting peace. Without it, no lasting peace. So if you don't have lasting peace, then you have to pick a side. Saying the Israelis should give up their settlements and quit being so mean to the poor Palestinians who want to be left alone so they can wipe the Israelis off the map somehow, is being pro Palestinian, whether you want to admit it or not. There's no moderate side here. There's no way to halve this baby.
  24. I feel like in the last half of the 20th century the Democratic party has a history of being concerned about escalation, and the Republican party has a history of going all in as much as possible. Currently I feel like the Democratic party is willing to help Ukraine, while there are substantial powerful influences in the Republican party that wants to hand over Crimea and the Donbas to Russia and be done with this thing already. The way the war has been prosecuted by the Democrats feels on par with the civilian oversight in other post WWII conflicts. That's not to say they haven't been right at times. But to me it feels like a consistent approach to conflict. The main thing to me has been artillery. Not the only thing, but the main thing. That blockage for funding left the Ukrainian artillery holding their dicks in their hands, which was the primary contributor to Russian success. That was absolutely a minority of Republicans pretty much entirely responsible for that. I still feel like the previous offensive was experiencing startling success against entrenched positions given the complete lack of airpower, until the funding dried up. It wasn't dramatic success, but there was success. I think the expectations were way out of line in the first place.
×
×
  • Create New...